# Gay rights. Nader. Browne. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2000, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-rights-nader-browne/31410 "2000-08-30T21:48:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-rights-nader-browne/31410/21 "2000-08-31T19:45:01Z")
First, Lib. I wasn’t implying that Browne was a “conservative” just that he was someone who conservatives could more or less vote for if they happened to be gay. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\ ***oldscratch,** > > Sounds to me like your main point boils down to an assertion that symbolic issues should take precendence over practical ones. Certain ones, anyway. \*\* No. My assertation is that the issue of equal rights should take precedence over all others, with one or two small exceptions. If you were african american and we were in the civil rights movement, you couldn’t in good conseince vote for someone who didn’t support equal rights for blacks, no matter how much you argeed with him. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Alot of people may vote for more practical reasons, based on the issues that they believe will actually directly affect their lives. > \*\* Can you name something that doesn’t affect your life more than equal rights. Oh yeah, the canidate is great, sure he thinks Jews shouldn’t be allowed to marry, but he has some great ideas about taxes. Yes there will always be some disagreements. But, there are some that can not be overcome. Equal rights is one of them. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-rights-nader-browne/31410/22 "2000-08-31T20:30:03Z")
**oldscratch,** > [@](#): > > My assertation is that the issue of equal rights should take precedence over all others, with one or two small exceptions. If you were african american and we were in the civil rights movement, you couldn’t in good conseince vote for someone who didn’t support equal rights for blacks, no matter how much you argeed with him…Can you name something that doesn’t affect your life more than equal rights. > Oh yeah, the canidate is great, sure he thinks Jews shouldn’t be allowed to marry, but he has some great ideas about taxes. The _overriding_ importance of equal rights, if the disparity is only limited to a few issues, is a symbolic one. If you were a gay guy who isn’t interested in marrying anyway etc., the only impact of the lack of civil rights is the **principle** of being equal under the law. Your example of Jews being able to marry is an important one. I would absolutely not support any candidate **today** who supported such a proposal. But that is because in today’s climate, anyone who made such a proposal is clearly a raving anti-semite. If I lived a few hundred years ago, and Jews had been long since been subjected to second-class treatment, I would give alot more weight (though not exclusive) to other considerations. In this case, the restrictions on homosexuals are longstanding. Furthemore, in the case of same-sex marriage, there is room to question whether it is indeed an equal rights issue. It is conceivable that some gays do not see it in those terms. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-rights-nader-browne/31410/23 "2000-08-31T20:52:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*The _overriding_ importance of equal rights, if the disparity is only limited to a few issues, is a symbolic one. If you were a gay guy who isn’t interested in marrying anyway etc., the only impact of the lack of civil rights is the **principle** of being equal under the law. \*\* And if you were a woman who was wealthy and wasn’t that concerned with voting, it would be symbolic too. However, you are betraying the interests of every other woman who has fought long and hard to win the right to vote. You are a traitor to your sex. > [@](#): > > \*\* > In this case, the restrictions on homosexuals are longstanding. \*\* As you stated you are doing this mearly out of convention and expedience. You don’t actually care for the rights of Jews or gays. As long as other people in society are willing to oppress them you are too. I find that attitude particularly repugnant. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Furthemore, in the case of same-sex marriage, there is room to question whether it is indeed an equal rights issue. It is conceivable that some gays do not see it in those terms. \*\* There is also the issue of immigration, millitary service, and some others. there were some slaves who were perfectly happy being slaves. If they voted against someone who would end slavery I would take issue with them too. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-rights-nader-browne/31410/24 "2000-08-31T21:07:14Z")
> [@](#): > > And if you were a woman who was wealthy and wasn’t that concerned with voting, it would be symbolic too. However, you are betraying the interests of every other woman who has fought long and hard to win the right to vote. You are a traitor to your sex. If you identify yourself solely by your sex (or, in this case, by your sexual orientation) you would have a stronger case. Some poeople may be gay and yet also consider themselves part of the community of working people, taxpayers etc. whose interests they also support. > [@](#): > > As you stated you are doing this mearly out of convention and expedience. You don’t actually care for the rights of Jews or gays. As long as other people in society are willing to oppress them you are too. I find that attitude particularly repugnant. I said that the restrictions are longstanding and that therefore support for them cannot be interpreted as hatred of gays. This would not be the case if someone was trying to institude new restrictions on gays. May I remind you that you yourself made a similar point in another thread about Karl Marx. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-rights-nader-browne/31410/25 "2000-08-31T21:19:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*If you identify yourself solely by your sex (or, in this case, by your sexual orientation) you would have a stronger case. Some poeople may be gay and yet also consider themselves part of the community of working people, taxpayers etc. whose interests they also support. \*\* You don’t have to identify yourself soley by sex, or race, or sexual preference. However, when someone is talking about denying a specific group of people equal rights based on their sex, race, or sexual preference, I expect you to come forth and stand with others of your kind. To quote Libertarian and George Bush’s favorite political philosopher ““He who is not for us is against us.” - Jesus” > [@](#): > > \*\*I said that the restrictions are longstanding and that therefore support for them cannot be interpreted as hatred of gays. This would not be the case if someone was trying to institude new restrictions on gays. \*\* Yes it can. Why? Because there are people out there decrying them and talking about how they are wrong. In the 1840’s, since you brung up the Marx example, he started a petition drive to give Jews full and equal rights. If he or others talked about how the oppression were acceptable because it was historical I would call them morally repugnant. May I remind you that you yourself made a similar point in another thread about Karl Marx. \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-rights-nader-browne/31410/26 "2000-08-31T21:21:23Z")
Sorry. Ignore that last line. That was a left over piece from IzzyR’s earlier post. ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-rights-nader-browne/31410/27 "2000-08-31T22:19:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > > That’s like asking for a cite that Karl Marx was class conscious. Nader’s class fetish is common knowledge. **Libertarian:** Hold the condescension until you’ve made your point, please. This: > [@](#): > > “Whatever your issue is, whether it’s racism or homophobia or policy issues or taxes or urban decay or health care, you’re not going to go anywhere with it if we don’t focus on the concentration of power.” does not equal this: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Libertarian:_ Nader would give priority rights to certain classes of people over certain other classes of people. For example, he might force those who are in the employer class to hire those who are in the gay class. That is uneven distribution of rights because he would not do it the other way around; that is, he would not force people in the gay class to work for people in the employer class. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2000, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-rights-nader-browne/31410/28 "2000-08-31T22:34:31Z")
Well, you’re right. 1 does not equal .99999999999999999999999999. I will admit that I made an assertion that was not only gratuitous, but hyperbolous, to a trivial degree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-rights-nader-browne/31410.md?page=1)